NationStates Jolt Archive

An article I found published today by the Pew Research Center, and one I recently read on the internet have proven to me that the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average American. The mass media can influence the influence the American public to sway one way or the other. Going by the opinion on polls posted on Nation States, I see the media has moved many Nation States players away from their common sense, morals, and values. The liberal media has been very successful in doing this to Nation States players, however, the American public still has far more conservative views on issues like abortion, religion, and homosexuality. I just hope the media cannot start brainwashing the public as successfully as they have managed to brainwash many of you.

The Pew poll found most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.

In summary, the public is 41% moderate, 33% conservative, and only 20% liberal. However, the media posses a large slant toward the liberal side. The national journalists described their political views as 54% moderate, 34% liberal, and only 7% conservative. In other words, the American public is over 4 times more conservative than the national media. Is that not a liberal slant?

What was more surprising to me was the statistics regarding the media’s stance on certain social issues. While 58% of Americans said that a belief in God was necessary to me moral, only 6% on the national press took that view. I guess the journalists are reading their articles in the Sunday paper instead of going to church like most Americans. 51% of Americans now believe homosexuality should be accepted by society, while an amazing 88% of the media take this view. I cannot believe people like me are labeled “homophobes” by the media, when about half of Americans hold the same view as I. The liberal media gives us these labels.

Now, I was thinking the views of the media are part of the whole “Bush is polarizing the nation” theory. Man, I was dead wrong. The media has been this liberal since at least 1976. A poll of White House correspondents showed that in 1976, 11 voted for Cater, only 1 for Ford. In 1980, 8 correspondents voted for Carter, only 2 for Reagan (very different from the national vote). Even with Regan in office, all of the White House reporters in 1984 voted for Mondale (again, not consistent with the American public). In 1988, 12 voted for Dukakis only one for Bush, the winner by 315 electoral votes.

The media, at least in my lifetime, has never really been moderate. I just hope the liberal media will continue to be unable to brainwash the American public. I realize that many of the Greens and liberals on Nation States are from Canada, Europe, or elsewhere around the world, but the number of liberal Americans on NS is proof that the mass media has a great influence over those who fail to research issues and fail to develop unique opinions while blindly following the guidance of the mass media.

That's a lot of moderates. I'm gona start a moderate party. Thanks for the information.

That's a lot of moderates. I'm gona start a moderate party. Thanks for the information.
New Foxxinnia? I had drill this weekend, did you get a DEAT bomb dropped on that ass while I was gone?

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?

I saw this. Actually oreilly isn't much of a conservative he really is a moderate/liberal or at least he's not someone I care for to much same with rush. Hannity is alright I don't agree with any of these guys but half the time I tend to be more of a libertarian type I guess

Ok and your point is what?

The Press is about money. If the "Liberal" agenda sells papers/ad space etc., then guess what philosphy they will take.....

Moralising seems to be a passion these days.

However, you are still simply chatting statistics.

I bet if you ask peeople why a belief in God was importat and how it pertains to a moral foundation, it would not be so cut and dry.

Going to Church on Sunday doesn't make you moral.

Some of the bigest scumbags I have ever worked with/for/against attend Church all the time.

So what if the News is Liberal. You make it sound like they are an information source.

Ever hear the term "infotainment"

In depth Journalism is on the decline in this country. You want facts, you have to review several sources.

Always remember the Media is a corporations and money comes first before the truth.

That's a lot of moderates. I'm gona start a moderate party. Thanks for the information.
New Foxxinnia? I had drill this weekend, did you get a DEAT bomb dropped on that ass while I was gone?Yes. Yes, one did actully. I'm in the process of whining 'till I get the original back.

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?
That is because 33% of Americans are conservatives while only 7% the media is conservative. With a large demand and a small supply of concervative reporting, of course the few conservative media personalities will be popular among Americans.

Actually oreilly isn't much of a conservative he really is a moderate/liberal or at least he's not someone I care for to much same with rush.

You dont seriously think that Rush Limbuagh or Bill O'Reilly are moderate, let alone liberals do you?

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

And for anyone foolish enough to think that the media is actually brainwashing everyone to be more liberal, realize that the Strong Effects theory was disproven a long time ago. It is still even up in the air as to whether or not media induces violence, which is much more pervasive on TV than liberal or conservative political opinion in many ways.

Media does not tell people how to think, but what to think about. Now think about that.

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?
That is because 33% of Americans are conservatives while only 7% the media is conservative. With a large demand and a small supply of concervative reporting, of course the few conservative media personalities will be popular among Americans.

So if only 7% of the media are Conservative, how can you possibly account for Fox News, or Knight -Ridder?

Media does not tell people how to think, but what to think about. Now think about that.

Really, you dont believe that people like Rush Limbuagh or Fox news in general attempt to influence their viewers opinions?

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

And for anyone foolish enough to think that the media is actually brainwashing everyone to be more liberal, realize that the Strong Effects theory was disproven a long time ago. It is still even up in the air as to whether or not media induces violence, which is much more pervasive on TV than liberal or conservative political opinion in many ways.

Media does not tell people how to think, but what to think about. Now think about that.

Well I think it is a bit of the "I don't like what they say so it must be a liberal plot"

These days; the use of "liberal" seems to be a four letter word for conservatives. :roll:

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?
That is because 33% of Americans are conservatives while only 7% the media is conservative. With a large demand and a small supply of concervative reporting, of course the few conservative media personalities will be popular among Americans.

So if only 7% of the media are Conservative, how can you possibly account for Fox News, or Knight -Ridder?

Well, the poll was among National journalists, so mostly print media. Fox News was most commonly listed when the journalists were asked "Can you name a media outlet that is especially conservative?"

If you have questions about the poll, here is the link to it:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214

Oh come on folks. The media is NOT liberal. It has not been for almost 2 decades. During the sixties and especially the seventies, there was a clear liberal bias in the news media. However, in the mid-eighties, a conservative media takeover took place. Since that time the media has become, overall, very moderate. There are certainly outlets with a clear bias on both sides (e.g. The New York Times and CBS News are moderately liberal, whereas the New York Post and ABC news are moderately conservative), but the ONLY mainstream media outlet with a severe bias is Fox News. All the stuff you hear today about the "liberal media" is rediculous. It is nothing but spin. Simply take a look at the 2000 U.S. presednetial election. Bush got more positive press and far less negative press than did Gore. The only real bias in the media today is a bias towards sensationalism.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

And for anyone foolish enough to think that the media is actually brainwashing everyone to be more liberal, realize that the Strong Effects theory was disproven a long time ago. It is still even up in the air as to whether or not media induces violence, which is much more pervasive on TV than liberal or conservative political opinion in many ways.

Media does not tell people how to think, but what to think about. Now think about that.

Well I think it is a bit of the "I don't like what they say so it must be a liberal plot"

These days; the use of "liberal" seems to be a four letter word for conservatives. :roll:

News Conservatives like hannity and O'Reilly remind me of Gollum.

"nassssty liberalses....we hates them precious!"

Oh come on folks. The media is NOT liberal. It has not been for almost 2 decades. During the sixties and especially the seventies, there was a clear liberal bias in the news media. However, in the mid-eighties, a conservative media takeover took place. Since that time the media has become, overall, very moderate. There are certainly outlets with a clear bias on both sides (e.g. The New York Times and CBS News are moderately liberal, whereas the New York Post and ABC news are moderately conservative), but the ONLY mainstream media outlet with a severe bias is Fox News. All the stuff you hear today about the "liberal media" is rediculous. It is nothing but spin. Simply take a look at the 2000 U.S. presednetial election. Bush got more positive press and far less negative press than did Gore. The only real bias in the media today is a bias towards sensationalism.
If there is no bias, how do you explain the fact that the people who cover the white house from 1976-1992, cast 49 votes for the Dem. nominee and only 7 votes for the republican nominee?

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?
That is because 33% of Americans are conservatives while only 7% the media is conservative. With a large demand and a small supply of concervative reporting, of course the few conservative media personalities will be popular among Americans.

So if only 7% of the media are Conservative, how can you possibly account for Fox News, or Knight -Ridder?

Well, the poll was among National journalists, so mostly print media. Fox News was most commonly listed when the journalists were asked "Can you name a media outlet that is especially conservative?"

If you have questions about the poll, here is the link to it:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=214

Ah.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes of this poll.
Your alledging that there is a liberal media bias, and use this poll to back up your claims.
Trouble is..since far more Americans get thier news from television, wich clearly many people cite Fox News as having a definate conservative bias...
Your poll means very little, wouldnt you say?
What is the most watched news channel?

Faux News....

Which side do they lean towards?

Conservative.

Ah.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes of this poll.
Your alledging that there is a liberal media bias, and use this poll to back up your claims.
Trouble is..since far more Americans get thier news from television, wich clearly many people cite Fox News as having a definate conservative bias...
Your poll means very little, wouldnt you say?
What is the most watched news channel?

Faux News....

Which side do they lean towards?

Conservative.
If Fox is the most watched news station, then it is clear prof of supply and demand. there is a large demand for conservative journalism, while there is only one outlet for it.

1. Statsitics would no doubt show that people employed in media (especially writers) tend to have more education and might well score higher on IQ tests than would an average member of the public.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.

3. Therefore a higher degree of Liberalism will be found in the media profession than among the average public. But you would also find a higher level of Liberalism among a lot of professions requiring a University education - not just media. Especially in those professions which draw people not just for salaries but for idealistic reasons as well.

4. So a profession which includes educated, smart, idealistic people has some influence on the public. Shouldn't we consider that a good thing?

The media, at least in my lifetime, has never really been moderate. I just hope the liberal media will continue to be unable to brainwash the American public. I realize that many of the Greens and liberals on Nation States are from Canada, Europe, or elsewhere around the world, but the number of liberal Americans on NS is proof that the mass media has a great influence over those who fail to research issues and fail to develop unique opinions while blindly following the guidance of the mass media.


It always amazes me how often conservatives in the media complain that the media is so biased. MAkes you wonder how they ever got jobs....

But back on to your final paragraph, your assertion though seems to be that all who research issues and develop unique opinions will automatically come down on the side of conservatism.

An indication, I guess, that conservatism in somehow inherently correct in all instances.

That being the case, I guess as we look throught history all those who fought for and achieved things like voting rights for women, equal rights for minorities, basic civil rights and freedoms, separation of church and state, in fact pretty much every damn freedom you have since the days of nobility and serfdom - all of which were staunchly opposed by the conservatives of their day - were done by people who were unable to formulate unique opinions.

Interesting concept......

Ain't buying it.... but it IS interesting!

:D
-Z-

Ah.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes of this poll.
Your alledging that there is a liberal media bias, and use this poll to back up your claims.
Trouble is..since far more Americans get thier news from television, wich clearly many people cite Fox News as having a definate conservative bias...
Your poll means very little, wouldnt you say?
What is the most watched news channel?

Faux News....

Which side do they lean towards?

Conservative.
If Fox is the most watched news station, then it is clear prof of supply and demand. there is a large demand for conservative journalism, while there is only one outlet for it.

So, now we move away from a "liberal bias" and attempt to say that the reason for Fox's bias is becuase of demand?

Poor tactic on your part.

Maybe you should look into who own Fox News before you say that.

Liberals usually have more accepting minds... and the Media needs to be accepting and open to all ideas with out a bias.

1. Statsitics would no doubt show that people employed in media (especially writers) tend to have more education and might well score higher on IQ tests than would an average member of the public.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.

3. Therefore a higher degree of Liberalism will be found in the media profession than among the average public. But you would also find a higher level of Liberalism among a lot of professions requiring a University education - not just media. Especially in those professions which draw people not just for salaries but for idealistic reasons as well.

4. So a profession which includes educated, smart, idealistic people has some influence on the public. Shouldn't we consider that a good thing?


i wouldn't necessarily agree that liberalism is connected to intelligence and education. i would however argue that intelligent well educated liberals are more attracted to the journalism while well educated intelligent conservatives are probably more inclined toward the business sector.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

Ah.

Now we get to the meat and potatoes of this poll.
Your alledging that there is a liberal media bias, and use this poll to back up your claims.
Trouble is..since far more Americans get thier news from television, wich clearly many people cite Fox News as having a definate conservative bias...
Your poll means very little, wouldnt you say?
What is the most watched news channel?

Faux News....

Which side do they lean towards?

Conservative.
If Fox is the most watched news station, then it is clear prof of supply and demand. there is a large demand for conservative journalism, while there is only one outlet for it.

So, you go from screaming about bias in print (well, in general, until someone called you on it) to backpedalling when someone points out that TV is what really matters and try to justify the bias there. You really are a riot, NA.

Why don't you show us a study which shows an actual bias in coverage? Surely, you must be able to point this out. I mean, after all, 33% of the media is Lib-rul!

1. Statsitics would no doubt show that people employed in media (especially writers) tend to have more education and might well score higher on IQ tests than would an average member of the public.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.

3. Therefore a higher degree of Liberalism will be found in the media profession than among the average public. But you would also find a higher level of Liberalism among a lot of professions requiring a University education - not just media. Especially in those professions which draw people not just for salaries but for idealistic reasons as well.

4. So a profession which includes educated, smart, idealistic people has some influence on the public. Shouldn't we consider that a good thing?


i wouldn't necessarily agree that liberalism is connected to intelligence and education. i would however argue that intelligent well educated liberals are more attracted to the journalism while well educated intelligent conservatives are probably more inclined toward the business sector.

Wich sounds great except for the fact that these guys make six figure salaries and benefit by Bush's "tax cut".
wich is why there are so mnay conservative media journalists.

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

double post.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

and again you backpedal.

First you say that there is a definate liberal bias.....and now you sau that there is only a "slight slant to the left?"

Wich is it?

and I have yet to see this "irrefutable proof" youve touted.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

and again you backpedal.

First you say that there is a definate liberal bias.....and now you sau that there is only a "slight slant to the left?"

Wich is it?

and I have yet to see this "irrefutable proof" youve touted.

The Hazards of Watching Fox News


The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.


And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).


Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

Source - http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

The Hazards of Watching Fox News


The more commercial television news you watch, the more wrong you are likely to be about key elements of the Iraq War and its aftermath, according to a major new study released in Washington this week.


And the more you watch the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News channel, in particular, the more likely it is that your perceptions about the war are wrong, adds the report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).


Based on several nationwide surveys it conducted with California-based Knowledge Networks since June, as well as the results of other polls, PIPA found that 48 percent of the public believe US troops found evidence of close pre-war links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist group; 22 percent thought troops found weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq; and 25 percent believed that world public opinion favored Washington's going to war with Iraq. All three are misperceptions.

Source - http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16892

Nicely timed Steph.

Since were on the sublect of Rupert "Howling Mad" Murdoch...

Would anyone care to show us this guys particular slant?

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

I should also point out that the studies - including the Pew Report that you mention - are all focused on print media. So equating that to ALL the media is simply unsupported.

Let's face it - are you going to say that talk radio is generally liberal? No. Hell, the conservatives have all been enjoying watching Air America struggling to get out of the gate.

Is the TV media overly biased?

Well, we have Fox news. MSNBC has a good mix on both sides of the centerline. And then there is CNN that tends more to the left, but still has people like Novak and Carlson and Dobbs appearing daily.

So making a blanket statement such as you have equating these studies as being indicitive of all of the media is disengenuous and unsupported by any study that I have ever seen - not to mention unsupported by the news stations I have watched.


-Z-

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.

yeah but pew is a big supporter of npr, and is often quoted in their quite liberal broadcasts. i think they are generally a fairly honest pollster, i've seen many of their polls support liberal positions.

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.

How do you know that he's a registered republican? He doesn't give that out when asked.

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.

How do you know that he's a registered republican? He doesn't give that out when asked.

Because Al Frankens book "lies and the lying liars who tell them" has a photocopy of the actual certificate, wich can be clearly shown that REPUBLICAN in written right smack dab on it.

hard to lie about such a thing when theres a little thing called "the Freedom of Information Act"

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.

How do you know that he's a registered republican? He doesn't give that out when asked.

Actually - he DID admit to it in the past:

From the washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62722-2000Dec12?language=printer)

In fact, O'Reilly was a registered Republican – until last week. O'Reilly acknowledges that since 1994 he was listed on the Republican voting rolls in Nassau County, where he lives. But he says it was the result of a clerical mistake, which he's rectified. "I've always been an independent," he says. "I always split my ticket. I vote for the person I think is best."

How do you register accidentally?

-Z-

He claims that there was no space for "independant" so he left it blank...
And that it automatically labeled him in the Republican party.

Wich is why Franken put him in his book, and calls him a liar.

Becuase you can clearly see, on the photocopy...that the word "Republican" is clearly written on it.

Bill O' Reilly is a liar.

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.

yeah but pew is a big supporter of npr, and is often quoted in their quite liberal broadcasts. i think they are generally a fairly honest pollster, i've seen many of their polls support liberal positions.Support your claim. I have an open mind, but I doubt you will produce anything that would be counterproductive to the agenda of, say.. an oil company.

Conservatives had cried 'liberal' so often and so fast that I no longer feel like running to protect the flock...

Smarter men than I have hashed the subject:
The basic elements of this propaganda model of the media consist of five main filters whose cumulative effect is to manufacture a predetermined consensus among the people who draw their information from these media. The five filters are:

1) the large size of the companies that own the media, their growing concentration in a smaller and smaller number of hands, and the priority that these companies give to profits;

2) advertising as the primary source of revenue for the major media;

3) the blind trust that these media place in official sources of information, such as governments, companies, and experts from public relations firms that are often on the payroll of the institutions of power;

4) the criticisms that the powerful level at the media and use to discipline them;

5) the hostility of the major media to any perspective that is leftist, socialist, or otherwise progressive.

God damn thats pathetic. And these stats have been posted before anyway.

If the media is liberal and controls public opinion then how come a Conservative Extremist got elected?

God damn thats pathetic. And these stats have been posted before anyway.

If the media is liberal and controls public opinion then how come a Conservative Extremist got elected?Subterfuge, dishonesty, cheating and manipulation, or haven't you been paying attention :lol: .

I am sick of hearing about the so called 'liberal' or 'conservative' media. Certainly some papers, news and radio channels, etc lean one way or the other, but it averages out to be a fairly balanced representation as long as you don't depend on one source. People who label the media liberal or conservative are usually of the opposite persuasion, and believe that a lack of bias in their direction automatically means a bias in the other. This isn't true of the whole.

I wonder why John Kerry denies that he's a massachusetts
liberal. Even more liberal then Ted Kennedy. That's scary. :roll:

I wonder why John Kerry denies that he's a massachusetts
liberal. Even more liberal then Ted Kennedy. That's scary. :roll:

When did he do that?

In one of his speeches...Ah, don't know the date. He has been trying to slide to the right as of lately to get the undecided votes.

Not all media is liberal, I mean, FOX News sticks out like a sore thumb. :lol:

I am just curious, when did being a liberal become a bad thing ? The way this is written It sounds like McCarthy era anti-communism propoganda. So what if highly educated people tend to be liberal (in political thought, perhaps not in other areas).
Beyond being a democracy (well, a republic anyway) we are a consumer state. If all the people interviewed really were as "conservative" as they say or if the media were so "liberal" that they were out of touch with the common person, and can stay in business (because Americans vote with dollar bills) then there are only two possibilities.

1. The "liberal" media does not allow thier political views to influence thier reporting.

2. The populace polled doesn't represent America as a whole.

And as an aside, I do not think that I have been brainwashed. Please try to refrain from insulting the readership here. I know the papers I read do not insult me, but they are written by well educated people. Thank you.

:P
What an awesome thread!
Most of the folks here ARE beyond the petty 2nd-grade puffy-lip schoolyard namecalling and backing stuff up with facts!
:idea: :!:

Here is the deal with you people. Most of you are probably 20 and under, so you can't remember what it was like without any Fox News. FN has only been around 7 or so years. What did we have before that?

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC, NPR, newspapers, talk radio.

That entire list is left leaning, save talk radio. (And no, this point is not arguable; I know you fanatics on here consider those sources right-leaning in many cases, but we're measuring Left and Right against the general population, not the population of NationStates.)

So yeah. Pretty much every mass-media outlet, except talk radio, left-leaning. Then Fox News comes along. Wow, a network that isn't so damn negative abuout America all the time. It's no wonder its popularity skyrocketed. You had a bunch of normal people in America sick and tired of the left-leaning media, so they flocked to Fox as soon as it became available.

This is, as a poster tried to point out, supply and demand. Fox News has the highest ratings because all the other networks are left leaning. If you're a left winger and care to watch the news, you can get your news anywhere. If you're a right winger, the only place you can go to watch the news without wanting to throw something at the TV, is Fox. And I think something else needs to be said here. Fox isn't brainwashing anyone. The claim is often made that Fox spews a bunch of lies and sucks people in. That's not the case. It's just that given a choice, people would rather watch news coverage that more reflects the worldview they've ALREADY developed.

---------

I want to more fully explore the fact that a lot of people on this board are radical left wingers, which is really the only explanation for their cries of "conservative media". Here is the deal. You have 20% of the country definitely right wing, 20% definitely left wing, and a whole bunch of people in the middle. They might vote one way or another based on some issue that they really care about. The point I want to make is that many of you on this board are self-proclaimed left-wingers; or if you haven't identified yourself that way, your allegiance is known by the posts you write.

Now you, who are obviously biased by your allegiance, have no basis for saying there is a "conservative mass media". However I want to be fair, so I'll say I, myself, have no basies for saying there's a "liberal mass media". (Even though in every political poll I take I'm a centrist; for purposes of this discussion we'll assume I'm conservative.) Now, if you want to be objective, you need to concede that neither of us has the right to decide whether the media is left or right leaning.

So who should decide?

How about that 60% in the middle.

Or a sampling of the American public at large. Works the same.

But here's where you'll disagree, and moan and moan. Because such samples have already been taken. Like it or not, the American public sees a mass media with a liberal slant. This is backed up by many polls; I can try to link some if anyone wishes. Notably, no polls claiming the reverse (the public thinking the media was too conservative) have ever been released.

So I'm saying that the public has made its decision. When you take them together, they represent the center. And to them, the mass media is left of center.

Nice rant HB, but meaningless really. Throughout history the spreading of information and the revelation of truth has been the bastion of the radical (or liberal). It makes sense really that more people in the news business would be liberal, conservatives don't really go for change and displaying all your dirty linen in front of the world usually causes change. Only when big business gets into the mix and takes control from the inquizative minds do we get a something like Fox, which just regurgitates what it's fed.

So what you're basically saying is that the only people in the world we should trust to make decisions are the liberals, because they're the only ones who care about getting truth out?

That sounds pretty elitist to me.

Don't you care about the opinions, thoughts, and wishes of the rest of the country?

Liberals = expose things
Conservatives = hide things

An easy equation to show why liberals are usually in the media.

Celeborne,

I disagree with your overly-simple premise.

So what you're basically saying is that the only people in the world we should trust to make decisions are the liberals, because they're the only ones who care about getting truth out?

That sounds pretty elitist to me.

Don't you care about the opinions, thoughts, and wishes of the rest of the country?The job of the media is not to make decisions. It is to report the news. And to be diligent in seeking out that news. It's not my fault that those that seek the truth tend to be liberal.

dbl post

Celeborne,

I disagree with your overly-simple premise.

Thank you, that was done on purpose with the hopes of showing how silly all of this lableing and generalization is.

And that's really the reason I barely ever post on this board. You have me, with a nation created Feb. 2003, with 261 or so posts. Mostly long things trying to explain my position carefullly so there'll be no confusion. Then you have someone like Celeborne, with 6008 posts since April 2003, and we can certainly see why. Short and to the point, but perish the thought of any explanations to back up a very shortsighted statement.

And that's really the reason I barely ever post on this board. You have me, with a nation created Feb. 2003, with 261 or so posts. Mostly long things trying to explain my position carefullly so there'll be no confusion. Then you have someone like Celeborne, with 6008 posts since April 2003, and we can certainly see why. Short and to the point, but perish the thought of any explanations to back up a very shortsighted statement. i'm even worse :shock:

And that's really the reason I barely ever post on this board. You have me, with a nation created Feb. 2003, with 261 or so posts. Mostly long things trying to explain my position carefullly so there'll be no confusion. Then you have someone like Celeborne, with 6008 posts since April 2003, and we can certainly see why. Short and to the point, but perish the thought of any explanations to back up a very shortsighted statement.

You don't read my posts very often (but thanks again for making my point about how silly these generalizations are). You must have posted this before reading my explination.

PS. you assume to much, most of my posts have been on the RP side, but thanks for playing.

media is controlled by the jews, enough said

media is controlled by the jews, enough said

Nice troll, have you been practicing your flame baiting skills ?

Ok,

Thank you, that was done on pirpose with the hopes of showing how silly all of this lableing and generalization is.

I'll respond by saying: If the generalizations are so silly, we can move on to a discussion on why certain kinds of media are better or worse for the country at large, if you wish.

I am skeptical you want to do that. But if you don't, it was pointless to try to point out "silliness" in the topic.

Would that be the liberal jews or the conservative jews?

As you wish,

I really feel that either type of media as the primary news source of a nation is a very bad idea. They should be more concerned with reporting the truth rather than creating it. When the media becomes political, everyone loses.
Liberal or conservative secondary or even tertiary news sources to highlight points of interest for specific people would be fine. But I cannot stress enough that the greater purpose of the media is to educate the populace to information that they may not have access to on thier own, not to further any political scemes.
As much as the media needs to be free of the government, it also needs to be free of political agendas.

P.S. you really should stop making assumptions about me, it is making you look silly and petty.

As you wish,

I really feel that either type of media as the primary news source of a nation is a very bad idea. They should be more concerned with reporting the truth rather than creating it. When the media becomes political, everyone loses.
Liberal or conservative secondary or even tertiary news sources to highlight points of interest for specific people would be fine. But I cannot stress enough that the greater purpose of the media is to educate the populace to information that they may not have access to on thier own, not to further any political scemes.
As much as the media needs to be free of the government, it also needs to be free of political agendas.

P.S. you really should stop making assumptions about me, it is making you look silly and petty.

thats a great ideal for the media but in america the rightwing media has a definite class warfare agenda

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

And for anyone foolish enough to think that the media is actually brainwashing everyone to be more liberal, realize that the Strong Effects theory was disproven a long time ago. It is still even up in the air as to whether or not media induces violence, which is much more pervasive on TV than liberal or conservative political opinion in many ways.

Media does not tell people how to think, but what to think about. Now think about that.

Funny thing, when people question the methodology of a poll that proves something against the liberal agenda, you're not flamed and bombarded with hundreds of responses refuting your "dastardly assertions". On the other hand, question the methodology of an anti-Republican poll, and you're suddenly ignorant.

Celeborne,

Sorry, it's a bad habit, but one that's almost necessary when posting something someone might disagree with.

If I don't make such assumptions and statements, frequently a responder will take the conversation in a direction that is irrelevant to the main discussion, and which therefore becomes a huge waste of time, and gets me bored and frustrated. I urge you not to take it personally, and apologize, having seen that you are one who can indeed have a good discussion. Unfortunately, such assumptions are something I have to do when I post, to make sure the conversation doesn't stray. Thanks for understanding.


As for your take on what media's purpose should be, I can agree with a lot of what you said. My question would then be, though, do you think today's mass media is doing a good job of meeting your criteria? I don't think they are; just my observations.

No problem, I understand.

As to the question at hand, I would have to agree with you. I do not think that the media at large is doing a good job of unbiased reporting. I will not accuse them, as a whole, of swinging one way or another. Individual news agancies do tend to pick an agenda, and they swing wildly from right-wing to left-wing. I think that is a large reason for the polorization of politics in America has a lot to do with the effect that the polorized media is having on the populace at large.

Could definitely be. See, this gets really interesting now. You could say it becomes a chicken-or-the-egg type question. Is the political polarization of the nation caused by mass media, or is the polarization of the mass media caused by the public's demand?

I don't know.

Probably depends on lots of factors, such as upbringing, peers, intelligence, life habits. Boring stuff, I'm sure.

Not to boreing. And then there is also this question : Is the population really begining political polorization, or is that just what we are being led to believe by the media and political pollsters ?
I have to believe, however, that since we are a capitalist state, that if the media were not representing the people, then they would see thier finances disappear. However I may be dreaming.

To be honest I think most people are moderates.

I've read a lot of that data online and much of it is correct, but much of it is also due in part to incorrect data collection. One must also keep in mind that the people with final say on publication are the editors, who tend to be more conservative, and that the corporations owning the particular media do have a large say.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

and again you backpedal.

First you say that there is a definate liberal bias.....and now you sau that there is only a "slight slant to the left?"

Wich is it?

and I have yet to see this "irrefutable proof" youve touted.
I produced proof that, among journalists, there is a deffinate bias toward the left, and I also showed that among editors there is a slight bias to the left. How is that backpedaling?

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.
If you actually read the findings of the poll, you would see that it was equally harsh on the Bush administration and the liberal biased media. Of course you didn't though.

The results from the journalists polled by the question, "Where are your political views: liberal, conservative, or moderate?" and their responses indictated that there are far less conservatives per capita in the media than in the real world.

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.
actually he is a registered libertarian.

Just watch Bill O'reilly. :oops:

Yah...the same guy who claims to be an independant.

Excpet for the fact that he is a registered Republican, and has been since he worked on "A Current Affair."

A tabloid news show.
actually he is a registered libertarian.

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.

I think most people care more about entertainment. American Idol, Britney, Fifty Cent, People Magazine, stuff like that. Politics barely scratches the surface. Then when they go to vote (if they do vote), they vote based on this little buzz in their head from all the gossip and uninformed statements they heard around the water cooler at work, or with friends. I hate to sound so jaded by this, but when you really look at it, there are few people who really make an effort to be informed. It's not that anyone is being brainwashed by the media, it's just that the public doesn't care to process much of the information.


This, incidentally, is why I think media bias is such a big deal. If the media reports a story (or a big story overy several days/weeks) and there's a load of bias in their reporting, then only their particular slant on it will filter down to the public. Since the public doesn't bother to make an informed analysis, they are more affected.

Oh well, that post turned out way too long.

God damn thats pathetic. And these stats have been posted before anyway.

If the media is liberal and controls public opinion then how come a Conservative Extremist got elected?
ha! the media attempts to control the public. good judgement will always prevail over the attempts of the media.

The results from the journalists polled by the question, "Where are your political views: liberal, conservative, or moderate?" and their responses indictated that there are far less conservatives per capita in the media than in the real world.

Yes, but the poll doesn't say that "the media is liberal". It says that most journalists are moderates. There may be more journalists in the poll that identify themselves as being liberal than there are who identify as conservative, but then there's still the issue that there were almost twice as many "moderate" journalists than liberal ones! So how does that prove a liberal bias?

Furthermore, simply because a person identifies themselves with a political ideology doesn't constitue "proof" of bias. You can have your opinions and beliefs and still be professional and (relatively) objective at your job.

I actually voted for John Kerry, before I voted against him :lol:

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.
excuse me, what i meant to say was he claims to be a libertarian.

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.
excuse me, what i meant to say was he claims to be a libertarian.

So he says.....

But in reality hes a registered Repulblican.

I think most people care more about entertainment. American Idol, Britney, Fifty Cent, People Magazine, stuff like that. Politics barely scratches the surface. Then when they go to vote (if they do vote), they vote based on this little buzz in their head from all the gossip and uninformed statements they heard around the water cooler at work, or with friends. I hate to sound so jaded by this, but when you really look at it, there are few people who really make an effort to be informed. It's not that anyone is being brainwashed by the media, it's just that the public doesn't care to process much of the information.


This, incidentally, is why I think media bias is such a big deal. If the media reports a story (or a big story overy several days/weeks) and there's a load of bias in their reporting, then only their particular slant on it will filter down to the public. Since the public doesn't bother to make an informed analysis, they are more affected.

Oh well, that post turned out way too long.

I agree with you about the entertainment 'news'. During the height of the latest Michael Jackson scandal, I was disgusted by how much airtime he was given compared to Iraq. Yeah, if he's guilty then he's a sorry excuse for a human being, but the war is unquestionably a more important story. It just didn't sell as well as everybody's favorite freak posterboy, so it got shoved to the side. DAMN, I hate people sometimes.

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.
excuse me, what i meant to say was he claims to be a libertarian.

So he says.....

But in reality hes a registered Repulblican.
he says that is a mistake. who are you to question his personal actions?

I think most people care more about entertainment. American Idol, Britney, Fifty Cent, People Magazine, stuff like that. Politics barely scratches the surface. Then when they go to vote (if they do vote), they vote based on this little buzz in their head from all the gossip and uninformed statements they heard around the water cooler at work, or with friends. I hate to sound so jaded by this, but when you really look at it, there are few people who really make an effort to be informed. It's not that anyone is being brainwashed by the media, it's just that the public doesn't care to process much of the information.


This, incidentally, is why I think media bias is such a big deal. If the media reports a story (or a big story overy several days/weeks) and there's a load of bias in their reporting, then only their particular slant on it will filter down to the public. Since the public doesn't bother to make an informed analysis, they are more affected.

Oh well, that post turned out way too long.

First, your post was not to long.

I agree with you once again. What was intended to be a political system that was supported by people who bothered to get involved and get educated has turned into little more than another sporting event. People root for thier "team" be it republican or democrat, and do not bother to find more information than what is spoon fed to them by the media. Do I blame the media, hell no. They are mearly doing what the people want. If you really want to get educated the information is out there.And if you want an unbiased media, get off your butt and vote. Vote in the elections , vote with your dollars.

Also so many people are arm-chair politicians, they complain about bad moves (usually of the opposing team) and rejoice when thier teams wins (by whatever means neccessary), but when it comes down to it, very few of them are really involved, heck most of them don't even score a point for thier team (via voting) when given the oppertunity.

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.
excuse me, what i meant to say was he claims to be a libertarian.

So he says.....

But in reality hes a registered Repulblican.
he says that is a mistake. who are you to question his personal actions?

I am. Franken had a copy of O'Reilly's voter registration form in his book. The Republican box is clearly checked off. I don't agree with or support everything Franken has done or said, but this seems to be a clear case of O'Reilly flat-out lying.

Not unless he officially resigned from the Republican party as of this year he isnt.

check your sources.
excuse me, what i meant to say was he claims to be a libertarian.

So he says.....

But in reality hes a registered Repulblican.
he says that is a mistake. who are you to question his personal actions?

I am. Franken had a copy of O'Reilly's voter registration form in his book. The Republican box is clearly checked off. I don't agree with or support everything Franken has done or said, but this seems to be a clear case of O'Reilly flat-out lying.

Thats where I got my info from as well.

Thats why I called O Reilly a liar.

the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average AmericanWho isn’t?

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average AmericanWho isn’t?
well, the average American isn't

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Isn't that rather misleading, though, since under 40% of Americans VOTED in the 2000 elections? :roll: Apathy doesn't equal apolitical.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

Perhaps you should look up the education that the presidents have received..and thier IQ's.....and THEN decide,

Whos the highest?

Clinton.
180 IQ.
Rhodes Scholar.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Isn't that rather misleading, though, since under 40% of Americans VOTED in the 2000 elections? :roll: Apathy doesn't equal apolitical.
if they won't get off their ass and vote, i would say that either:
a. they have no political preferance or
b. their too fucking lazy to vote, so who cares

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

Do you realize that by your numbers Gore beat Bush (depending on numbers of voters in each bracket)?

Sorry to side track.

if they won't get off their ass and vote, i would say that either:
a. they have no political preferance or
b. their too fucking lazy to vote, so who cares


Unfortunatly in a democracy (or republic) the people get the government they deserve.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Isn't that rather misleading, though, since under 40% of Americans VOTED in the 2000 elections? :roll: Apathy doesn't equal apolitical.
if they won't get off their ass and vote, i would say that either:
a. they have no political preferance or
b. their too fucking lazy to vote, so who cares

But the fact that someone doesn't vote- for whatever reason- doesn't mean they don't have any political opinions or beliefs. Or are you saying one has to vote to be considered a "conservative/liberal", etc.? What about convicted felons, who are prohibited from voting? Are you saying none of them have any political preferences? Absurd.

2. Higher education and intelligence tend to go hand-in-hand with Liberalism.
I would tend to look at the opposite end of the spectrum and say that lower education and intelligence tend to go hand in hand with liberalism, at least according to the 2000 Presidential exit polls.

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

Do you realize that by your numbers Gore beat Bush (depending on numbers of voters in each bracket)?

Sorry to side track.
that was a CNN exit poll, they may have happened to poll more Dems than Reps.

But Gore did recieve more votes than Bush in the popular vote, so maybe this is indicitive of the general public.

the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average AmericanWho isn’t? :lol: Brilliant!

I would just like to say this...
*ahems*

Yes, the vast majority of people who 'work' for a news organization tend to vote Democratic and vote for Liberal candidates. However, the vast majority of people who own and operate news organizations are conservative and tend to vote for Republicans. Those that are in charged of dictating news, controlling it and giving a story the final go ahead are all largely Republicans. Rupert Murdoch is a perfect case in point.

So yes, media is "Liberal" in so far as those that work for it are liberal. But its control, the stories it produces, are largely Republican. As such, using polling data that shows that the majority of those in the media ‘vote’ Democratic is useless. The large majority of people who are in Unions are actually very conservative, and try to vote Republican. But unions themselves are Highly Liberal.

Does any of this make sense?

I would just like to say this...
*ahems*

Yes, the vast majority of people who 'work' for a news organization tend to vote Democratic and vote for Liberal candidates. However, the vast majority of people who own and operate news organizations are conservative and tend to vote for Republicans. Those that are in charged of dictating news, controlling it and giving a story the final go ahead are all largely Republicans. Rupert Murdoch is a perfect case in point.

So yes, media is "Liberal" in so far as those that work for it are liberal. But its control, the stories it produces, are largely Republican. As such, using polling data that shows that the majority of those in the media ‘vote’ Democratic is useless. The large majority of people who are in Unions are actually very conservative, and try to vote Republican. But unions themselves are Highly Liberal.

Does any of this make sense?
Part of that made sense. However the only case mentioned by people so far as a case of the ownership of a press outlet being conservative is with Fox News, can you state more examples than just one please?

I have stated this once already about the people who "control" what is reported or printed, so I'll copy and paste it.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

I would just like to say this...
*ahems*

Yes, the vast majority of people who 'work' for a news organization tend to vote Democratic and vote for Liberal candidates. However, the vast majority of people who own and operate news organizations are conservative and tend to vote for Republicans. Those that are in charged of dictating news, controlling it and giving a story the final go ahead are all largely Republicans. Rupert Murdoch is a perfect case in point.

So yes, media is "Liberal" in so far as those that work for it are liberal. But its control, the stories it produces, are largely Republican. As such, using polling data that shows that the majority of those in the media ‘vote’ Democratic is useless. The large majority of people who are in Unions are actually very conservative, and try to vote Republican. But unions themselves are Highly Liberal.

Does any of this make sense?
Part of that made sense. However the only case mentioned by people so far as a case of the ownership of a press outlet being conservative is with Fox News, can you state more examples than just one please?

I have stated this once already about the people who "control" what is reported or printed, so I'll copy and paste it.

okay, in January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

So there is a slight slant among editors toward the left.

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!
we go by electoral votes, not popular votes so it really doesn't matter

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.
If you actually read the findings of the poll, you would see that it was equally harsh on the Bush administration and the liberal biased media. Of course you didn't though.

The results from the journalists polled by the question, "Where are your political views: liberal, conservative, or moderate?" and their responses indictated that there are far less conservatives per capita in the media than in the real world.Back up and read my reasoning as to exactly why journalists tend to be liberal. Only conservatives such as you spin that into being a bad thing. The Pew Reseach center isn't lying to us, they're just allowing their results to be spun for political reasons, your rant in your first post is proof enough of that.

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!

I believe the theory is that, "If there is a slight liberal slant by editors, and a strong liberal slant by reporters, the odds of the reported news having a liberal slant is substantial."

*scrolls up*

Perhaps you should look up the education that the presidents have received..and thier IQ's.....and THEN decide,

Whos the highest?

Clinton.
180 IQ.
Rhodes Scholar.

And perhaps you should bounce on over to http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm and stop repeating that urban legend.

I believe the theory is that, "If there is a slight liberal slant by editors, and a strong liberal slant by reporters, the odds of the reported news having a liberal slant is substantial." Hmm yess, A theory I still say doesn't jive. The news itself isn't controlled that way.

If the media is liberal, which it is not; then what is the problem? America was built on liberalism, a product of the enlightenment.

I'm glad SOMEBODY finally found proof of what we have been sure of for so long...

Most journalists are liberals- that's just a demographic charicteristic. You can present an objective, unbiased view irregardless of your opinions.

Also, especially on social issues, those of us that live in urban areas (as national journalists do) tend to be more liberal. New York, the center of the media industry except for CNN, tends to be liberal.

It all comes down to demographics- people can't escape who they are. That does not mean that they are nesscesarily biased.

Whether the Pew Research Center is correct is irrelevent. The IQ of presidents is irrelevent.(Even though Clinton is smarter than Bush, someone with an IQ of 180 should skip tons of grades. Average IQ is 100. I'd guess Clinton is around 135-150, and Bush is around 90-110.)

What is relevent is how we train our journalists in their journalistic education to be unbiased and report the facts.

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!
we go by electoral votes, not popular votes so it really doesn't matter

Huh? It doesn't matter? Am I mistaken, didn't you start this thread to prove that America is more conservative on the whole? Wouldn't the popular vote show a tie with the general public?

Bush may have won the most electoral votes but if only 42 percent VOTED for him, it's a fair assumption that a number of those 42% of people who actually did vote were moderates that were swayed by Bush's platform thus actually showing that the MAJORITY of voting Americans were in fact NOT conservative?

(edit spelling)

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.

yeah but pew is a big supporter of npr, and is often quoted in their quite liberal broadcasts. i think they are generally a fairly honest pollster, i've seen many of their polls support liberal positions.Support your claim. I have an open mind, but I doubt you will produce anything that would be counterproductive to the agenda of, say.. an oil company.

Not speaking for this case but the agenda of a corporation does not always come into play.

Take Dominos Pizza. How would the CEO running Operation Rescue serve the needs of the corporation?

God damn thats pathetic. And these stats have been posted before anyway.

If the media is liberal and controls public opinion then how come a Conservative Extremist got elected?
ha! the media attempts to control the public. good judgement will always prevail over the attempts of the media.

The public has good judgement? :shock:

Churchill once said the Surest cure for democracy is a 5 minute discussion with the average voter! :wink:

Face the facts: the media will say whatever sells. It's not liberal. It's not conservative. News is no longer news. The line between news and entertainment has deteriorated into nothing. Just look at Fox News! Extremism has a great market right now. If you want the news fact-based and truly fair and balanced, pick up a newspaper, watch PBS, or listen to NPR, because it's doubtful you'll find it anywhere else.

New Auburnland, you are what us liberals like to refer to as a "tool of the man". You spread this drival without checking it out. Allow me to school you.

Lesson number one people, follow the money! Pew research center is funded by Pew charitable trusts (how political polls qualify as charity is logic only conservatives understand), established by the founder of Sun Oil Company. Start to make sense now? You are basically having a buch of guys paid by a conservative trust telling you that the media is too liberal, inferring that they shouldn't be listened to because they don't really represent America.

Class dismissed.

yeah but pew is a big supporter of npr, and is often quoted in their quite liberal broadcasts. i think they are generally a fairly honest pollster, i've seen many of their polls support liberal positions.Support your claim. I have an open mind, but I doubt you will produce anything that would be counterproductive to the agenda of, say.. an oil company.

Not speaking for this case but the agenda of a corporation does not always come into play.

Take Dominos Pizza. How would the CEO running Operation Rescue serve the needs of the corporation?

More Babies = More Potential Pizza Buyers?

Here is the deal with you people. Most of you are probably 20 and under, so you can't remember what it was like without any Fox News. FN has only been around 7 or so years.

And a few of us are not only over 20, but over 30.

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. In fact, this new neo-conservatism we are seeing today in the United States (and yes I believe it's isolated to the United States) is quite new. At the moment the extremists are in power.. not the average moderate conservative. Until that changes, extremists will always bring extreme divides. As we see going on now. The only way to start moving in the right direction again is to get rid of the extremists in the White House. Any thing until then shall remain extreme.

Here is the deal with you people. Most of you are probably 20 and under, so you can't remember what it was like without any Fox News. FN has only been around 7 or so years.

And a few of us are not only over 20, but over 30.

There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. In fact, this new neo-conservatism we are seeing today in the United States (and yes I believe it's isolated to the United States) is quite new. At the moment the extremists are in power.. not the average moderate conservative. Until that changes, extremists will always bring extreme divides. As we see going on now. The only way to start moving in the right direction again is to get rid of the extremists in the White House. Any thing until then shall remain extreme.

So we're not going to fix the problem this year, then. :?
No matter who wins, there willl be an extremist in the White House.

Whether or not the media has a bias is irrelevant. It probably does, but that stops NOBODY (well, aside from the lazy and ignorant, I suppose)from using multiple sources of information, as I do. If all anyone does is only listen to Rush, or only watch Mr. Michael Moore's 'movies', only read one newspaper or watch just one station, then yes, there is a definite bias. Just read/watch/listen to many of them, from many sides!
Yes, there will be an extremist whatever the outcome this November. We just need to pay more attention to the McCain's, the Lieberman's. Specifically, care enough about the moderates that media coverage of them becomes a profitable venture. Good day.

No matter who wins, there willl be an extremist in the White House.

Huh? How is Kerry "extremist"? :? (I'm not necessarily saying he's not, just that I don't see it.)

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.html

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.htmlits own problems is a concerted effort by corporations to silence them

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.htmlits own problems is a concerted effort by corporations to silence them

That might be PART of it, but you also have to consider that a "Liberal version of Fox News"- which is how the station was billed- isn't necessarily going to appeal to that many people. I'm liberal and I know I certainly don't listen to it. Part of it is I'm not interested in a "liberal Fox". The other part is I don't like talk radio.

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.htmlits own problems is a concerted effort by corporations to silence them

That might be PART of it, but you also have to consider that a "Liberal version of Fox News"- which is how the station was billed- isn't necessarily going to appeal to that many people. I'm liberal and I know I certainly don't listen to it. Part of it is I'm not interested in a "liberal Fox". The other part is I don't like talk radio.ok but you have to admit that americans are STARVED for enlightened progressive opinions on the air and for a station like this to close will return the media into being a vacume of total irrelevancy once more--the truth the left speaks is so powerful even one liberal station on the air nationwide can spark a change in mass conciousness

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.htmlits own problems is a concerted effort by corporations to silence them

That might be PART of it, but you also have to consider that a "Liberal version of Fox News"- which is how the station was billed- isn't necessarily going to appeal to that many people. I'm liberal and I know I certainly don't listen to it. Part of it is I'm not interested in a "liberal Fox". The other part is I don't like talk radio.ok but you have to admit that americans are STARVED for enlightened progressive opinions on the air and for a station like this to close will return the media into being a vacume of total irrelevancy once more--the truth the left speaks is so powerful even one liberal station on the air nationwide can spark a change in mass conciousness

Only if people listen to it.

if the media is so "liberal" then why is the only liberal radio station on the air being targetted for extinction by the corporate beast who hijacked our media for the rightwing liars for the rich?
air america is having its own problems. the right doesn't need to put pressure upon the network for it to fail.

http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/002169.htmlits own problems is a concerted effort by corporations to silence them

That might be PART of it, but you also have to consider that a "Liberal version of Fox News"- which is how the station was billed- isn't necessarily going to appeal to that many people. I'm liberal and I know I certainly don't listen to it. Part of it is I'm not interested in a "liberal Fox". The other part is I don't like talk radio.ok but you have to admit that americans are STARVED for enlightened progressive opinions on the air and for a station like this to close will return the media into being a vacume of total irrelevancy once more--the truth the left speaks is so powerful even one liberal station on the air nationwide can spark a change in mass conciousness

Only if people listen to it.true but theres also the ripple effect--the problem the rightwing philosophy is so undefensible the only thing they can do to win is to silence their moral superiors

Hey MKULTRA! Was that a crack at me in the TRA thread?

Hey MKULTRA! Was that a crack at me in the TRA thread?

Take it outside, we are having a discussion here.

Hey MKULTRA! Was that a crack at me in the TRA thread?no I was just sayin im glad u came back

the problem the rightwing philosophy is so undefensible the only thing they can do to win is to silence their moral superiors

I disagree, there are some ideas that are considered right-wing that are quite defensable. The support of the family unit would be the best example that I can think of. It is the extremists of both groups that make the left and the right appear bad.

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage


Do you see any liberals there?You do realize the guys are all on the same channel, with the exception of Rush... they're all on Fox.

Hey MKULTRA! Was that a crack at me in the TRA thread?no I was just sayin im glad u came backOh! Sorry. I've recently been pulled to the side by my dad and told to read between the lines of what people say.

Hey MKULTRA! Was that a crack at me in the TRA thread?no I was just sayin im glad u came backOh! Sorry. I've recently been pulled to the side by my dad and told to read between the lines of what people say.your dad is more paranoid them me :lol:

the problem the rightwing philosophy is so undefensible the only thing they can do to win is to silence their moral superiors

I disagree, there are some ideas that are considered right-wing that are quite defensable. The support of the family unit would be the best example that I can think of. It is the extremists of both groups that make the left and the right appear bad.the best defense of the family unit is to EXPAND the definition of it to be more realistically inclusive--alot of things the rightwing does destroys families economically as well

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage

Do you see any liberals there?You do realize the guys are all on the same channel, with the exception of Rush... they're all on Fox.

First off, that's wrong. Savage was never on Fox. When he was on TV, he was on MSNBC- just like current conservative commentator Joe Scarborough.

Secondly, what does that have to do with his point of these guys being popular?

Liberal bias in the media?

You guys will believe anything.

List off the more popular media celebrities:

Sean Hannity.
Rush Limbuagh
Bill O'Reilly
Michael ( my real name is weiner) Savage

Do you see any liberals there?You do realize the guys are all on the same channel, with the exception of Rush... they're all on Fox.--First off, that's wrong. Savage was never on Fox. When he was on TV, he was on MSNBC- just like current conservative commentator Joe Scarborough.

Secondly, what does that have to do with his point of these guys being popular?theyre only popular cause theyre given exposure but the corporate media censors the voices of enlightened people

An article I found published today by the Pew Research Center, and one I recently read on the internet have proven to me that the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average American. The mass media can influence the influence the American public to sway one way or the other.......Didn't feel like quoting all of that because I wanted to make this simple point. Here's the link to the Pew Research report. (http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=830) And notice what the commentators on the report have to say:
Journalists' own politics are also harder to analyze than people might think. The fact that journalists--especially national journalists--are more likely than in the past to describe themselves as liberal reinforces the findings of the major academic study on this question, namely that of David H. Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, in their series of books "The American Journalist."

But what does liberal mean to journalists? We would be reluctant to infer too much here. The survey includes just four questions probing journalists' political attitudes, yet the answers to these questions suggest journalists have in mind something other than a classic big government liberalism and something more along the lines of libertarianism. More journalists said they think it is more important for people to be free to pursue their goals without government interference than it is for government to ensure that no one is in need.

This libertarian strain is particularly strong among local journalists, who are also more likely to describe themselves as moderate.

In other words, the survey doesn't cover the liberality of journalists or their coverage of the news, and what it does ask about isn't what is generally referred to as "liberal" thought today.

Other people have already made the point that the decisions about the amount of money that's put into journalism and the stories that are covered and the depth to which they will be covered are made by people of a largely more conservative bent than the journalists themselves, so I won't go into that in any more depth.

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!
we go by electoral votes, not popular votes so it really doesn't matter

Huh? It doesn't matter? Am I mistaken, didn't you start this thread to prove that America is more conservative on the whole? Wouldn't the popular vote show a tie with the general public?

Bush may have won the most electoral votes but if only 42 percent VOTED for him, it's a fair assumption that a number of those 42% of people who actually did vote were moderates that were swayed by Bush's platform thus actually showing that the MAJORITY of voting Americans were in fact NOT conservative?

(edit spelling) Stearing the thread back on topic, Some how I feelThat New Auburnland would copletly shurg off your argument, If anything he would use it,
"See if most of America is Liberal, then the Media is obviously controled by them!" feh, This whole thing is biased and one sided. Incertonias' above comments show even the people who gave the Poll commented that this a poor example of the actual poltical leanings of the Media.

Saying that the Media is run by Liberals because those who work in it VOTE Liberal is like saying Unions are run by Republicans because many members vote republican.

So... a "Slight Slant" In the Newspaper editors equals an Entier Media 'Controlled' by Liberals?

Also, since your so fond of spewing numbers and stastics instead of logic, you do know 'Just 42 percent of the public voted Republican Geroge Bush' thats like, way low dude!
we go by electoral votes, not popular votes so it really doesn't matter

Huh? It doesn't matter? Am I mistaken, didn't you start this thread to prove that America is more conservative on the whole? Wouldn't the popular vote show a tie with the general public?

Bush may have won the most electoral votes but if only 42 percent VOTED for him, it's a fair assumption that a number of those 42% of people who actually did vote were moderates that were swayed by Bush's platform thus actually showing that the MAJORITY of voting Americans were in fact NOT conservative?

(edit spelling) Stearing the thread back on topic, Some how I feelThat New Auburnland would copletly shurg off your argument, If anything he would use it,
"See if most of America is Liberal, then the Media is obviously controled by them!" feh, This whole thing is biased and one sided. Incertonias' above comments show even the people who gave the Poll commented that this a poor example of the actual poltical leanings of the Media.

Saying that the Media is run by Liberals because those who work in it VOTE Liberal is like saying Unions are run by Republicans because many members vote republican.

An article I found published today by the Pew Research Center, and one I recently read on the internet have proven to me that the media is, in fact, more liberal than the average American. The mass media can influence the influence the American public to sway one way or the other. Going by the opinion on polls posted on Nation States, I see the media has moved many Nation States players away from their common sense, morals, and values. The liberal media has been very successful in doing this to Nation States players, however, the American public still has far more conservative views on issues like abortion, religion, and homosexuality. I just hope the media cannot start brainwashing the public as successfully as they have managed to brainwash many of you.

The Pew poll found most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public. About a third of national journalists (34%) and somewhat fewer local journalists (23%) describe themselves as liberals; that compares with 19% of the public in a May survey conducted by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, there is a relatively small number of conservatives at national and local news organizations. Just 7% of national news people and 12% of local journalists describe themselves as conservatives, compared with a third of all Americans.

In summary, the public is 41% moderate, 33% conservative, and only 20% liberal. However, the media posses a large slant toward the liberal side. The national journalists described their political views as 54% moderate, 34% liberal, and only 7% conservative. In other words, the American public is over 4 times more conservative than the national media. Is that not a liberal slant?

What was more surprising to me was the statistics regarding the media’s stance on certain social issues. While 58% of Americans said that a belief in God was necessary to me moral, only 6% on the national press took that view. I guess the journalists are reading their articles in the Sunday paper instead of going to church like most Americans. 51% of Americans now believe homosexuality should be accepted by society, while an amazing 88% of the media take this view. I cannot believe people like me are labeled “homophobes” by the media, when about half of Americans hold the same view as I. The liberal media gives us these labels.

Now, I was thinking the views of the media are part of the whole “Bush is polarizing the nation” theory. Man, I was dead wrong. The media has been this liberal since at least 1976. A poll of White House correspondents showed that in 1976, 11 voted for Cater, only 1 for Ford. In 1980, 8 correspondents voted for Carter, only 2 for Reagan (very different from the national vote). Even with Regan in office, all of the White House reporters in 1984 voted for Mondale (again, not consistent with the American public). In 1988, 12 voted for Dukakis only one for Bush, the winner by 315 electoral votes.

The media, at least in my lifetime, has never really been moderate. I just hope the liberal media will continue to be unable to brainwash the American public. I realize that many of the Greens and liberals on Nation States are from Canada, Europe, or elsewhere around the world, but the number of liberal Americans on NS is proof that the mass media has a great influence over those who fail to research issues and fail to develop unique opinions while blindly following the guidance of the mass media.

Well, a better try than posting a pic of Chrissie Hynde as proof she's a Liberal bent on destroying America and good conservative values. :lol:

I found this interesting report this morning on the supposed liberality of NPR. Now, it's an article of faith that NPR is a bastion of liberality on the airwaves--in fact, when the head of the Armed Forces radio network was questioned about their lineup, which contains daily doses of Limbaugh and Dr. Laura, he said that the ideological spectrum was represented by the inclusion of NPR's "All things Considered" and "Marketplace."

For the record, I'm of the opinion that the current move to get Limbaugh off AFN is a bit overblown, so I haven't signed any of the various petitions to pressure the government to make it happen--we have more important things to worry about right now.

But then comes this article (http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/news/ny-flnpr3818138may25,0,2746922.story) from Newsday that discusses a report done by FAIR. Here's the lede and the second paragraph.
Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog.

"Republicans not only had a substantial partisan edge," according to a report accompanying the survey, "individual Republicans were NPR's most popular sources overall, taking the top seven spots in frequency of appearance." In addition, representatives of right-of-center think tanks outnumbered their leftist counterparts by more than four to one, FAIR reported.
Bolded parts mine.

So how could this misperception have taken hold so firmly? FAIR's Steve Randall says, and I tend to agree, that NPR's approach has a lot to do with it. Compared to the over-the-top rantings of Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly and (especially) Savage, NPR's genteel approach provides for more balance and more opportunity for multiple perspectives to make their way into the discourse.

But the only way, apparently, that NPR is actually liberal leaning is when you compare them to the ranting right-wingers, which is like saying that John McCain is some sort of hippie in comparison to Tom DeLay. It may be true in that limited universe, but it's ridiculous in any wider sense.

The one thing ive noticed about ALL news providers is they rarly have goodnews even though if one were to look for it at all their could be alot of like the iraqies protesting the insurgency and the stabalization of Iraq as a whole but the The Media will only point their cameras at the closest explosion and pool of blood. Fox does ok but there could be more improvment. I mean every one says Pres.Bush hasnt laid out his plan but when he does does the media let people know? No the only people who covered it was C-span (i think thats what its called) The news cannot be fully trusted until it gets all sides of a story if they are going to cover it. :evil:

ok but you have to admit that americans are STARVED for enlightened progressive opinions on the air and for a station like this to close will return the media into being a vacume of total irrelevancy once more--the truth the left speaks is so powerful even one liberal station on the air nationwide can spark a change in mass conciousness
Americans are "starved for enlightened progressive opinions"?

I have to disagree. Dean was labled as the progressive canidate among the Dems, and he got his ass stomped in the primaries.

ok but you have to admit that americans are STARVED for enlightened progressive opinions on the air and for a station like this to close will return the media into being a vacume of total irrelevancy once more--the truth the left speaks is so powerful even one liberal station on the air nationwide can spark a change in mass conciousness
Americans are "starved for enlightened progressive opinions"?

I have to disagree. Dean was labled as the progressive canidate among the Dems, and he got his ass stomped in the primaries.Your logic does not follow. Just because Dean didn't receive the most votes in the primaries doesn't mean that the voters weren't looking for progressive opinions. It just means that they wanted someone else to lead the party.

And it's no coincidence that Kerry started his rise to the top in the race for the nomination when he started copping the lines of the more progressive candidates--and there were more than just one--and wove them into his campaign. Kerry started winning when he matched his resume with Dean's rhetoric.

Your logic does not follow. Just because Dean didn't receive the most votes in the primaries doesn't mean that the voters weren't looking for progressive opinions. It just means that they wanted someone else to lead the party.
Like someone who voted to go to war with Iraq, served in the military, has no plan for universal healthcare, and was in the Skull and Bones at Yale?
Well, why didn't the Democratic Party just nominate Bush?

...and was in the Skull and Bones at Yale?
Well...
1: Do you know what this is?
2: Do you know the last time Kerry was an active member?
3: If both Kerry AND Bush were members, what does it matter?

Like someone who voted to go to war with Iraq, served in the military, has no plan for universal healthcare, and was in the Skull and Bones at Yale?
Well, why didn't the Democratic Party just nominate Bush?

Point one--the war. Yes he did, and he's caught hell for that call. And many of the people who voted for other candidates in the primaries did so because of that vote. I didn't vote for him for precisely that reason, but I'll vote for him in November.

Point two--service in the military. What the hell does that have to do with anything? It's not like Dean ever pointed at Kerry's service and said it was a bad thing. You'll have to explain yourself on that one--I suspect you don't really have a point to make, but I'll give you a chance.

Point three--universal healthcare. Kerry doesn't have a single payer plan in mind, but then again, neither did Dean. Both have called for plans that will work incrementally toward universal coverage, but neither called for immediate implementation.

Point four--Skull and Bones. Again, what the hell does that matter? It never came up in the primaries, and if that was the reason someone actually cast or didn't cast their vote for Kerry, then they've got a seriously skewed sense of what's important.

Try it again.

my point is that there is really no differance between Bush and Kerry.

both are going to look after their own self intrest.

if you want a canidate who is actually going to do what he/she feels is best for this country, vote Nader or the Nationalist Party canidate.

my point is that there is really no differance between Bush and Kerry.

both are going to look after their own self intrest.

if you want a canidate who is actually going to do what he/she feels is best for this country, vote Nader or the Nationalist Party canidate.Then your point is ridiculous--there's a world of difference between the two, and I'm not even a Kerry fan.

But since you obviously won't take my word on it, here's one example, and it's an important one. Kerry won't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court that's even remotely close to Antonin Scalia in ideology, and Bush would appoint Scalia's clone if he could.

my point is that there is really no differance between Bush and Kerry.

both are going to look after their own self intrest.

if you want a canidate who is actually going to do what he/she feels is best for this country, vote Nader or the Nationalist Party canidate.Then your point is ridiculous--there's a world of difference between the two, and I'm not even a Kerry fan.

But since you obviously won't take my word on it, here's one example, and it's an important one. Kerry won't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court that's even remotely close to Antonin Scalia in ideology, and Bush would appoint Scalia's clone if he could.
considering how the judicial branch is has the least power, i don't see how this matters at all.

Rule #1 of Bad Debates...
When loosing your argument, undercut or trivialize your oppenents Point.
"Well... maybe there ARE differances between Kerry and Bush... But it doesn;t matter!"

the media leberal! thats obsured!


the media is far right. and they have been that way for to long.

the need a leftest change its still coming slowly.

my point is that there is really no differance between Bush and Kerry.

both are going to look after their own self intrest.

if you want a canidate who is actually going to do what he/she feels is best for this country, vote Nader or the Nationalist Party canidate.Then your point is ridiculous--there's a world of difference between the two, and I'm not even a Kerry fan.

But since you obviously won't take my word on it, here's one example, and it's an important one. Kerry won't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court that's even remotely close to Antonin Scalia in ideology, and Bush would appoint Scalia's clone if he could.
considering how the judicial branch is has the least power, i don't see how this matters at all.Considering that they have the power to overturn laws made by Congress, I'd say that's a pretty significant issue, especially if you're concerned about civil rights, gay rights, women's reproductive rights, oh, and the rare occasion where they actually choose a President.

the media leberal! thats obsured!


the media is far right. and they have been that way for to long.

the need a leftest change its still coming slowly. totally correct--the only reason so many americans are uninformed morons is cause conservatives hijacked the media

Proof that the Media is Liberal (Finally)


The media is finally liberal? Thank goodness for that. :lol:

Proof that the Media is Liberal (Finally)


The media is finally liberal? Thank goodness for that. :lol:america needs a liberal version of the foxnews network in order for democracy to survive in america at all

Will everyone PLEASE quit baggin on us Americans?!? ok i know that A LOT of us can be and are swayed the the media, and whatever that guy on the t.v/radio/newspaper said but GOD! i know im not like that. i know a lot of people that are not like that. i form my own opinions, thank you very much. i couldnt care less what "that guy" said. youre all just being prejudice. not all Americans are selfish, ignorant, capitalist zombies!

Will everyone PLEASE quit baggin on us Americans?!? ok i know that A LOT of us can be and are swayed the the media, and whatever that guy on the t.v/radio/newspaper said but GOD! i know im not like that. i know a lot of people that are not like that. i form my own opinions, thank you very much. i couldnt care less what "that guy" said. youre all just being prejudice. not all Americans are selfish, ignorant, capitalist zombies!of course not but all those undecided votes that always end up deciding the elections for the rest of us all are all cartoon watching drooling idiots and its the corporate/rightwing medias fault

Proof that the Media is Liberal (Finally)


The media is finally liberal? Thank goodness for that. :lol:america needs a liberal version of the foxnews network in order for democracy to survive in america at all
Like I said, Air America seems to be prosperiong very well right now.

The media is a bussiness. Supply and Demand.

Small supply of conservative viewpoints (MSNBC & Fox News) and a large Demand is going to make the few conservatives in the media seem out spoken.

Large supply of liberal viewpoints (pretty much everyone except Fox and MSNBC) and a small demand is going to make liberal networks like Air America fail.

Proof that the Media is Liberal (Finally)


The media is finally liberal? Thank goodness for that. :lol:america needs a liberal version of the foxnews network in order for democracy to survive in america at all
Like I said, Air America seems to be prosperiong very well right now.

The media is a bussiness. Supply and Demand.

Small supply of conservative viewpoints (MSNBC & Fox News) and a large Demand is going to make the few conservatives in the media seem out spoken.

Large supply of liberal viewpoints (pretty much everyone except Fox and MSNBC) and a small demand is going to make liberal networks like Air America fail.but there can be no supply when they still have to pay their bills and theres an organized conspiracy by rightwingers and evil corporations to silence dissident voices by witholding advertsising dollars--conservative liars on the air are cultivated to the point where they become a success but people who speak the truth are targetted to be silenced

So wait, your saying that Conservative News networks prosper because there’s a low market for them? And that Liberal news sources 'fail' because there’s too many? But earlier you have stated that that the majority of Americans were Conservative, why would there be fewer Republican news networks? Conversely, if the Media as a whole was controlled by Liberals, why would any network fail? Additionally in your last post, you fully contradicted yourself by starting out saying: "Air America seems to be prospering very well" And then ended your post saying: "Air America will fail"

But all of this is moot, for you are basing all of this on the premise that there are more Liberal Media networks then Conservative. Your theory is roughly "The media is All Liberal, but America is Conservative and is forced to watch Liberal news."

We run in a Capitalist Technocracy, Why would Media groups show something the public does not want? Aside from simply being illogical, it makes no business sense. Again and again the idea that it is all "A Liberal Media" is repeatedly shown to be false, untrue, illogical.

You comments are contradictory, your logic is all biased or your personal opinion, the 'Facts' you site all come from one-sided sources, Or you deliberately miss-interpret them for your own ends.

You say again and agin the medial is Liberal, but look at the greatest proof, what is shown vrs what is removed. I give you examples, Stories critical of President Bush are often either refused publication or heavily criticized if they go to print. In the middle of damaging news to the administration, often news videos gloss over or paint incidents in a postive light. You may refute all these examples, but the point is that the Media reflects the will and wishes of those who own it. Big Money, Big corporations, all largely conservative.

Please, I ask you to stop, you have failed to argue your point, and you failed to provide convincing logic. You routinely underwrite and trivialize others who have called you to task and usually respond without ever really addressing their points, adding snide comments

So wait, your saying that Conservative News networks prosper because there’s a low market for them? And that Liberal news sources 'fail' because there’s too many? But earlier you have stated that that the majority of Americans were Conservative, why would there be fewer Republican news networks? Conversely, if the Media as a whole was controlled by Liberals, why would any network fail? Additionally in your last post, you fully contradicted yourself by starting out saying: "Air America seems to be prospering very well" And then ended your post saying: "Air America will fail"

But all of this is moot, for you are basing all of this on the premise that there are more Liberal Media networks then Conservative. Your theory is roughly "The media is All Liberal, but America is Conservative and is forced to watch Liberal news."

We run in a Capitalist Technocracy, Why would Media groups show something the public does not want? Aside from simply being illogical, it makes no business sense. Again and again the idea that it is all "A Liberal Media" is repeatedly shown to be false, untrue, illogical.

You comments are contradictory, your logic is all biased or your personal opinion, the 'Facts' you site all come from one-sided sources, Or you deliberately miss-interpret them for your own ends.

You say again and agin the medial is Liberal, but look at the greatest proof, what is shown vrs what is removed. I give you examples, Stories critical of President Bush are often either refused publication or heavily criticized if they go to print. In the middle of damaging news to the administration, often news videos gloss over or paint incidents in a postive light. You may refute all these examples, but the point is that the Media reflects the will and wishes of those who own it. Big Money, Big corporations, all largely conservative.

Please, I ask you to stop, you have failed to argue your point, and you failed to provide convincing logic. You routinely underwrite and trivialize others who have called you to task and usually respond without ever really addressing their points, adding snide commentsall OBJECTIVE studies of media bias all conclude the media has a conservative bias

The media is a bussiness. Supply and Demand.

Small supply of conservative viewpoints (MSNBC & Fox News) and a large Demand is going to make the few conservatives in the media seem out spoken.

Large supply of liberal viewpoints (pretty much everyone except Fox and MSNBC) and a small demand is going to make liberal networks like Air America fail.but there can be no supply when they still have to pay their bills and theres an organized conspiracy by rightwingers and evil corporations to silence dissident voices by witholding advertsising dollars--conservative liars on the air are cultivated to the point where they become a success but people who speak the truth are targetted to be silenced
okay, go ahead and keep on thinking that.

And you goahead and keep thinking that the Media is controlled by an Evil Liberal Conspiracy.

Proof that the Media is Liberal (Finally)


The media is finally liberal? Thank goodness for that. :lol:america needs a liberal version of the foxnews network in order for democracy to survive in america at all
Like I said, Air America seems to be prosperiong very well right now.

The media is a bussiness. Supply and Demand.

Small supply of conservative viewpoints (MSNBC & Fox News) and a large Demand is going to make the few conservatives in the media seem out spoken.

Large supply of liberal viewpoints (pretty much everyone except Fox and MSNBC) and a small demand is going to make liberal networks like Air America fail.Guess that means you didn't hear the announcement that Franken beat Limbaugh head to head in NY. WLIB got a 3.4 share while Limbaugh got a 3.1 on WABC. Air America isn't going anywhere.

Guess that means you didn't hear the announcement that Franken beat Limbaugh head to head in NY. WLIB got a 3.4 share while Limbaugh got a 3.1 on WABC. Air America isn't going anywhere.

Um... NY is hardly a conservative stronghold. There's what? 2 registered Democrats for every 1 Republican?

Now, if Franken could do that in Iowa (if he was on there) or Nebraska (again, if he was on there) that would be an accomplishment.

So wait, your saying that Conservative News networks prosper because there’s a low market for them? And that Liberal news sources 'fail' because there’s too many? But earlier you have stated that that the majority of Americans were Conservative, why would there be fewer Republican news networks? Conversely, if the Media as a whole was controlled by Liberals, why would any network fail? Additionally in your last post, you fully contradicted yourself by starting out saying: "Air America seems to be prospering very well" And then ended your post saying: "Air America will fail"
I am saying with a small supply and a large demand (like with oil, diamonds, gold) there will be a large market for the product. With a large supply and a small demand (dirt, 28.8 modems) there will be a small market for the product. This is a pretty basic principle to understand. I have never stated that conservatives make up a majority of the American population. I have stated that according to polls, 33% of Americans identify theirselves as conservatives while only 19% identify theirselves as liberals. My statement regarding AirAmerica prospering was sarcasim.

You ask "if the media is controled by liberals, why would any network fail?" My answer is that if a network sucks (like Air America) then people wont watch or listen to it. Ratings will drop. Advertisers will pull the cash from the network. The network will die. That is my answer. With a small demand for the product (like liberal radio) the product will fail.

Guess that means you didn't hear the announcement that Franken beat Limbaugh head to head in NY. WLIB got a 3.4 share while Limbaugh got a 3.1 on WABC. Air America isn't going anywhere.

Um... NY is hardly a conservative stronghold. There's what? 2 registered Democrats for every 1 Republican?

Now, if Franken could do that in Iowa (if he was on there) or Nebraska (again, if he was on there) that would be an accomplishment.Give him time--he'll be on there, as will Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofalo and the rest. Beating Rush in NYC on the flagship station for ABC is very impressive for a guy who's been on what, 2 months?

And their biggest audience is online--6.5 million discrete streams daily. They'll be around for a while to come.

who needed a national poll to know the media (most of it) is liberal? Open the New York Times or the Boston Globe...turn on CNN...all you need are eyes and ears and some common sense (which is in very short supply).

who needed a national poll to know the media (most of it) is liberal? Open the New York Times or the Boston Globe...turn on CNN...all you need are eyes and ears and some common sense (which is in very short supply).As is evidenced by the above post.

If anyone is interested, there's a book I'm reading called "vote.com" by dick morris (knew clinton for 20 years, but works for Fox!), about how the internet is the (almost) perfect media source to work the government with: media that helps creat a more direct democracy. Also makes a few good arguments on how modern politics and journalism are failures.